FROM PHONE NO. © 313 7@qS341 Pug. G2 2009 OS:07PM PL 2003-57-017 WAYNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES JUVENILE SERVICES DIVISION CONTROLS OVER SERVICE ii _PROVIDER GONTRAGTS Operational Audit June 3, 2004FROM : TRAN PHONE NO. © 313 7@qS341 Aug. G2 2009 GS: 5PM P2 EXECUTIVE HIGHLIGHTSFROM + TRAN PHONE NOL: 3137R4g341 Pug. @2 2009 OS:25PM PS EXECUTIVE HIGHLIGHTS AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES Atthe request of the Wayne County Commission, the Office of the Auditor General performed an operational audit of the Department of Children and Family Services (OCFS), Juvenile Services Division's Juvenile Justice Services Program. Our audit focused on the DCFS controls over contracts for the seven major sorvice providers. in the Juvenile Justice Services Program (Program). The Program has also been referred to as the Care Management Organization (CMO) Program. The objectives of the audit were to: 4) determine if payments to Program service providers were in accordance with contract provisions, and 2) assess the intemal controls in the DCFS to ensure service providers comply with key contract provisions. SUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS Service Providers Receive Unauthorized Payments The Juvenile Assessment Genter (JAC) received payments of $529,214 in excess ofwhattne contract allowed for on-site scteens/alcohol and other drug (AOD) pick ups through February 2004. The DCFS and the JAC acknowledge the overpayment. The DCFS has an agreement with the JAC for it to repay almost $300,000, but the JAC is disputing the balance of the excess AOD pick-up charges. See page 6. = During the initial three months of the program, the County issued advances in an amount of over $1.5 mion to five service providers (Care Management Organizations) in the Program, however, their contracts did not allow for advances. The advances were subsequently recovered. See page 6, = The DCFS paid the Juvenile Assossment Center's administrative costof $615,516 before the County Commission authorized the inclusion of the costs through a eontractamendment. See page 7. = The DCFS issued three advances to the JAC within an 11-month period in its first contract, According to their contract, the advances were fo be paid annually. See page 7. Questionable Use of Grants to Recover JAC Advances = Advances issued to the JAC during the Program's start-up year in the amount of $579,848 ‘were not recovered by monthly deductions to its Invoices to the County as required by its contract. The advances were recovered through an offset in payment to the JAC for its ‘of Children and Family Serdces, Juvenile Services DWision ‘DAP 2005-87517 Controls Over Servica Provider Contracts ‘June 3, 2008